Current Petitions

PE1105, by Marjorie McCance, is on behalf of St Margaret of Scotland hospice. Des McNulty is with us to speak to the petition.

I thank the committee for its consideration thus far of the issues around the St Margaret of Scotland hospice. I am also grateful to Marjorie McCance and Jean Anne Mitchell, who are behind the petition.The petition has two strands to it. The first is to do with the funding arrangements for hospices and the perceived inequity in the amount that each hospice gets per patient. We were told that a review of hospice funding would be completed by December 2009, but there has been no sign of it. We were told that the matter had gone back for further consideration, but we are now 15 months on and the findings of the review have not been published. The review has been conducted, but its report is in limbo. On that ground, I ask that the petition be continued.The second strand of the petition is to do with the treatment of the St Margaret of Scotland hospice by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde in relation to continuing care beds. Continuing care was meant to be concentrated in the Blawarthill unit, which was to be developed by a consortium, but that development is apparently no longer to proceed. The health board now insists that there will be a review of provision, even though it was previously prepared to go ahead with the Blawarthill development in the absence of a review. All that has changed is that the development of Blawarthill, in respect of continuing care, is no longer to proceed. I would like the minister to make an early decision on the issue, as there are a lot of concerns about the unsatisfactory behaviour of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde over the past three years. It has batted the issue of St Margaret’s off and has treated the hospice dreadfully regarding the presumption that facilities would be centralised at Blawarthill. Now that that development will not proceed, the health board is still not prepared to make any commitments in relation to St Margaret’s. On that ground, too, I would like the petition to be continued.I do not think that the petition will be continued for very long after May. I hope that the next petitions committee will be able to resolve the issues to its satisfaction relatively quickly. In my view, now is not an appropriate time to close the petition, so I hope that you will include it in the legacy paper for the incoming committee.

I agree with John Wilson that there is sufficient still to do that we should include the petition in our legacy paper in the hope that our successor committee will take it up. The perceived inequity in the funding arrangements for hospices has been considered by a review but, as Des McNulty said, the review is yet to publish its recommendations. We need to know when those recommendations will be published—that work is on-going.I also agree with Des McNulty, in whose constituency the St Margaret of Scotland hospice is located, that there must be an early decision by the minister, whoever that is after the election. However, as the member in whose constituency the Blawarthill unit is located, I have to say that it was earnestly hoped that the Blawarthill development would go ahead. I register my disappointment that it will not go ahead. It was never going to be a mutually exclusive arrangement—the one facility was not set against the other. That was never the way in which it was perceived, nor—to be fair to Des McNulty and others—was that ever the way in which support for the St Margaret of Scotland hospice was generated. The hospice generates its own support through the great work that it does. Nevertheless, I register my disappointment that, at the moment, the Blawarthill development is no longer to go ahead—it is in limbo, if I may use a theological expression. I do not know whether there is still a limbo, but that is where the development is and I am disappointed at that.

Thanks, Robin. That is helpful. I was going to make exactly that point. The committee is in a slightly difficult position. Nonetheless, revised guidance on hospice funding is currently out for comment from national health service boards and the Scottish hospices forum and it might be interesting for the next committee to look at the outcome of that. I think that it would be admissible for the committee to include the petition in our legacy paper on that ground, but I seek guidance from the clerk.

We must make it clear that the committee does not have a locus in the operational matters of health boards, although members may want to comment.

In respect of what you have just said, convener, the petition is about“whether arrangements for funding palliative care provision at hospices ... are fair and reasonable.”It is about the first point that Des McNulty made, which is perfectly permissible and within the rules.

Okay. Is it agreed that the petition will go into the legacy paper?Members indicated agreement.

Thanks very much, Mr McNulty.

I will make a couple of points in conclusion, if I may. It is reasonable to say that it is not for the committee to involve itself in local issues. We never asked it to do that. Bill Butler is right to say that the fact that we do not yet have the information on hospice funding is a reasonable basis on which to continue the petition.Also, I make the converse point to the point that Robin Harper made. The issue has been going on for three years and has come to the committee, in different contexts, a number of times because of the unsatisfactory handling of matters by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, which has gone on for an unreasonable length of time. There is an issue about the decision-making processes of the health board, irrespective of its decisions, which is a reasonable matter for the committee to pursue. I am not asking the committee to adjudicate on whether the hospice or the health board is right in relation to any future decision; I am highlighting the fact that the process has been uncomfortably long and inappropriate and that the responsibility for that rests with the health board. There is an issue about the way in which matters are dealt with by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and, maybe, health boards more generally. The matter should have been dealt with far earlier than this.

The next committee may wish to pursue those issues, but we must be clear about the grounds on which we have decided to include the petition in our legacy paper. Thank you.